The Epistles in General

THE EPISTOLARY FORM IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE.

The revelation of God comes to us in many
forms, in diverse manners. It is not only embodied in facts, but
also in words; it is borne not only by the prophets, but also by
the sweet singers and by the wise men of Israel; it finds
expression not only in the Gospels, but also in the Epistles. About
one-third of the New Testament is cast in the epistolary form.

This form of teaching was not something
absolutely new in the time of the apostles, although we find but
few traces of it in the Old Testament. Mention is made there of
some letters written by kings and prophets, f. i. in I Kings 21: 8,
9; II Kings 5:5-7; 19:14; 20:12; Jer. 29:1; but these are quite
different from our New Testament Epistles. The letter as a
particular type of self-expression took its rise, so it seems,
among the Greeks and the Egyptians. In later time it was also found
among the Romans and in Hellenistic Judaism, as we notice from the
epistle of Aristion, that treats of the origin of the Septuagint.
According to Deissmann the Egyptian papyri especially offer a great
amount of material for comparison.

In all probability, however, it was Paul
who first introduced the epistle as a distinct type of literary
form for the conveyance of divine truth. Aside from the Gospels his
Epistles form the most prominent part of the New Testament. In this
connection it is well to bear in mind the important distinction
made by Deissmann between a letter and an epistle, of which the
former is non-literary, or, as J. V. Bartlet says, “pre-literary,”
and the latter is a literary artistic form of communication. It is
Deissmann’s conviction that the writings of Paul have been very
much misunderstood. “They have been regarded as treatises, as
pamphlets in letter form, or at any rate as literary productions,
as the theological works of the primitive Christian dogmatist.” He
insists that they are letters, serving the purpose of communication
between Paul and the congregations, letters that were not intended
by Paul for publication, but only for the private use of the
addressees, arising from some historical exigency, unsystematic and
pulsating with the life of the writer. Deissmann, St. Paul
p. 7 ff. This writer certainly rendered us good service by calling
attention to the fact, often lost sight of, that the Epistles of
Paul are the living spontaneous expression of a great mind,
continually meditating and reflecting on the truth of God; that
they are letters, often clearly revealing the changing moods of the
apostle. They are marked as letters by their occasional character,
by their being calculated for a single community and situation, and
by their addresses, praescripts and salutations.

With respect to the fitness of this form
for the communication of the divine thoughts the remarks of Bernard
are very valuable. He finds that it is in perfect harmony “with
that open and equal participation of revealed truth, which is the
prerogative of the later above the former dispensation; indicating
too that the teacher and the taught are placed on one common level
in the fellowship of the truth. The prophets delivered oracles
to the People, but the apostles wrote letters to the
brethren, letters characterized by all that fulness of
unreserved explanation, and that play of various feeling, which are
proper to that form of intercourse. It is in its nature a more
familiar communication, as between those who are or should be
equals.” “The form adopted in the
New Testament combines the advantages of the treatise and the
conversation. The letter may treat important subjects with accuracy
and fulness, but it will do so in immediate connection with actual
life. It is written to meet any occasion. It is addressed to
peculiar states of mind. It breathes of the heart of the writer. It
takes its aim from the exigencies, and its tone from the feelings
of the moment.” Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the N.
T. pp. 156, 157.

THE INSPIRATION OF THE EPISTLES

The Scriptural Epistles are as well as the
Gospels and Acts divinely inspired. Even as in their preaching, so
also in writing their letters the apostles were guided by the Holy
Spirit. Here again we must distinguish between the apostolic and
the graphical inspiration, although in this case the two are very
closely connected. For a general description of the apostolic
inspiration we refer to p. 30 if. above. It is necessary to remark,
however, that in the case of the Epistles, as distinguished from
that of the Gospels, it did not almost exclusively assume the
character of a ὑπομνήσις, but was also
to a great extent a διδασκαλία. Both of
those elements are indicated in the promise of the Holy Spirit
given by Christ before his departure: “But the Comforter, even the
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall
teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I said unto you.” John 14: 26. Cf. also
16:12,13. In the Gospels we have the totality of the apostolic
κήρυγμα hence their production naturally
depended in great measure on a faithful memory. The Epistles, on
the other hand, contain the fruit of the apostles reflection on
this κήρυγμα, their injerpretation of it.
Therefore it was not sufficient that the writers in composing them
should faithfully remember former things; they needed more light on
them, a better understanding of their real meaning and profound
significance. For that reason the Holy Spirit became their
διδασκαλος.

The apostles were evidently conscious of
being inspired by the Holy Ghost in the composition of their
Epistles. This follows from the authority with which they address
the congregations. They feel sure that their word is binding on the
conscience; they condemn in unqualified terms those who teach any
other doctrine as coming from God; they commend and praise all that
diligently follow their directions; but they also reprimand and
censure those that dare to follow another course. If this is not
due to the fact that they were conscious of divine inspiration, it
bespeaks an overweening arrogance; which, however cannot be
harmonized with their life of service and their many expressions of
deep humility.

Moreover there are several explicit
statements in the Epistles testifying to the fact that the apostles
were aware of being the instruments of Gods Spirit. Thus Paul
claims that the Spirit revealed to him the hidden things of God,
which he also spoke, not in words which man’s wisdom taught, but in
words which the Spirit taught, I Cor. 2:10,13. He is willing to
subject his words to the judgment of the prophets, I Cor. 14: 37;
and to give a proof of Christ speaking in him, II Cor. 13: 3. He
thanks God that the Thessalonians received the word of his message,
not as the word of man, “but as it is in truth, the word of God,” I
Thess. 2:13; and admonishes them to hold the traditions which they
were taught by his word or by his Epistle. Peter places the word of
the prophets and that of the apostles on a level as the Word of
God, in I Pet. 1: 10-12; and elsewhere he arranges his Epistle
alongside of those of Paul, which he calls Scripture by
implication, and thus clearly shows that he also regards his own
writing as a product of the Spirit of God, II Pet. 3:15, 16. John
writes: “We are of God; he that knoweth God knoweth us; he that is
not of God knoweth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth and
the spirit of error.” I John 4: 6. This language is intelligible
only on the supposition that John spoke the words of God.

Now we must bear in mind that the apostles
speak thus regarding their written words, so that they were
evidently conscious of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in writing
their Epistles. To that extent they too shared in a separate
transcriptive inspiration. Their Epistles are a part of the Word of
God, and have been accepted as such by the Church. It is true that
for a time five of them, viz., the Epistles of James and Jude, II
Peter and II and III John, were classed as antilegomena, but this
only means that their canonicity was subject to doubt and dispute
for a while, not that they were ever numbered among the spurious
books. They have been recognized by the majority of ecclesiastical
writers from the very beginning, and were generally accepted by the
Church after the council of Laodicea in A. D. 363.

THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL

The Old and the New Testament revelations
run on parallel lines. In the Old Testament we have the fundamental
revelation of the Law in the Pentateuch; in the New Testament, the
fundamental revelation of the Gospel in the fourfold witness of the
evangelists. This is followed in the Old Testament by the
historical books, revealing the institutions to which the Law gave
rise; and in the New Testament, by a historical book, showing how
the Gospel of Jesus Christ found embodiment in the Church. After
this we find in the New Testament the Epistles that reveal the
operation of the truth in the churches, and contain, in connection
with the life of the churches, the interpretation of the Gospel;
thus corresponding in part to the Old Testament books of
experience, such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc., and in part to the
prophets as interpreters of the Law. The Gospels show us, how
Christ was preached to the world; the Epistles, how he was taught
to the Church. The former contain the facts of the manifestation of
Christ; the latter the effects of it in the spiritual experience of
the churches.

In the Epistles we get a glimpse of the
inner life of the congregations; we see, how they receive the truth
and to what degree they are guided by it in their actions. We
behold Christian life in operation, working on the great principles
that have been received. We find that some heartily embrace the
truth and endeavor to apply it consistently to life in its manifold
forms; that others grasp it but imperfectly and, as a result,
misapply it in practical life; and that still others resist the
truth and pervert it to their own condemnation. And in connection
with these conditions the truth is now set forth and interpreted
and applied to the multifarious relations of life.

This teaching is given in the epistolary
form, of which we have already spoken. Cf. p.129 above. And the
method employed by the writers in presenting the truth is, as
Bernard says, “one of companionship rather than of dictation.” They
do not announce a series of revelations that come to them from
without, but they speak out of the fulness of their own Christian
knowledge and experience. Neither do they approach their readers
with the authoritative prophetic formula, “Thus saith the Lord,”
which in the Old Testament was the end of all contradiction; but
they appeal to the judgment and conscience of those whom they
address. They state their propositions and then substantiate them
by giving the grounds on which they rest. They argue with their
readers from the Old Testament, from generally admitted truths and
from experience, often employing the argumentum ad hominem
to give point to their teachings; and they intercept the objections
of their readers and refute them. This method of teaching, as
compared with that of the prophets, is more truly human, the divine
factor being less prominent; and as compared with that of Christ in
the Gospels, is far more argumentative, calculated to train the
minds of men to that thoughtfulness that leads to a thorough
assimilation of the truth.

In their contents as well as in their form
the Epistles are a distinct advance on the Gospels. After the
latter have presented to us the manifestation of Christ in the
world, the former treat of the life in Christ, in which
the acceptance of his manifestation issues. After the Spirit of God
has been poured out, Christ, who had formerly dwelt among men,
makes his abode in the very hearts of believers. Hence it is
especially of that new life of believers in union with Christ, that
the Epistles speak. They constantly emphasize the fact that the
individual believers and that the churches are “in Christ,” and
that therefore their conversation too must be “in Christ.” They
clearly interpret the significance of Christs work for believers
out of every nation and tribe. and point out that his experiences
are paralleled in the life of every believer. All those that are
united with Christ by faith suffer with Christ, are crucified with
Christ, die with Christ, and live with Christ in newness of life.
And their future life is hid with Christ in God. The origin of that
new life, its conditions, its nature, its progressive and communal
character, and its final perfection and glory,—are all clearly
described in the Epistles. As the foundation on which all these
blessings rest we are pointed to the redemptive, the justifying,
the sanctifying, and the intercessory work of Jesus Christ. He is
the beginning and the end. The Epistles contain clear evidence that
believers are gathered from every nation and tribe to Christ who is
the Head of the Church, and in whom they are builded together for a
habitation of God in the Spirit, that God may be all in all.

CLASSIFICATION

The New Testament contains in all
twenty-one Epistles, which may be divided into two classes, viz.,
1. The Pauline Epistles; and, 2. The General Epistles.

1. The Pauline Epistles. Thirteen
of the New Testament Epistles bear the name of the great apostle to
the gentiles. Hence they are generally known as the Pauline
Epistles. By some the Epistle to the Hebrews is added to this
number, though it nowhere claims to have been written by Paul. The
Church has always been divided on the question of it’s authorship,
the Eastern church affirming and the Western denying that Paul
wrote it. Clement of Alexandria states that the apostle composed it
in the Hebrew language, and that Luke translated it into Greek.
From a statement of his we may probably infer that his teacher,
Pantaenus, also affirmed the Pauline authorship of this Epistle,
which would carry the testimony back another generation. Origen
admits that a very old tradition points to Paul as the author, but
he comes to the conclusion that only God knows who wrote the book.
Irenaeus does not attribute the Epistle to Paul; nor does
Tertullian, who regards Barnabas as the author. Eusebius says: “Of
Paul the fourteen Epistles commonly received are at once manifest
and clear. It is not, however, right to ignore the fact that some
have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it is
gainsaid by the church of Rome as not being Paul’s.” He was
inclined to believe that the apostle wrote it in Hebrew and that
Luke, or more likely, Clement of Rome translated it. The catalogue
of the council of Laodicea also speaks of fourteen Epistles of
Paul. We shall leave the question of the authorship of this Epistle
in suspense for the present, and classify the fourteen Epistles of
which we have now spoken, as follows:

I. Pauline Epistles:

1. Those written during the period of
Pauls missionary activity:

a. The two
Epistles to the Thessalonians;

b. The Epistle
to the Galatians;

c. The two
Epistles to the Corinthians;

d. The Epistle
to the Romans.

2. Those written during Pauls
imprisonment:

a. The Epistle
to the Ephesians;

b. The Epistle
to the Colossians;

c. The Epistle
to Philemon;

d. The Epistle
to the Philippians.

3. Those written after Pauls release from
the Roman prison:

a. The two
Epistles to Timothy;

b. The Epistle
to Titus.

II. Of uncertain Authorship:

The Epistle to
the Hebrews.

It may well be supposed that Paul who
always remained in touch with the churches he founded wrote many
more letters than we now possess of him. This is evident also from
the Epistles themselves. I Cor. 5:9 refers to a letter now lost,
and it is possible that II Cor. 7: 8 does also, although this may
refer to first Corinthians. Col. 4:16 speaks of a letter out of
(ix) Laodicea, of which we have no further knowledge. Although
these letters were undoubtedly inspired as well as the ones we
still possess, we may rest assured that no Epistle intended by God
for the canon of Holy Scriptures was ever lost.

We may further remark that Paul evidently
wrote very little with his own hand; he generally employed an
amanuensis in the composition of his Epistles and merely added with
his own hand the salutation to his friends and the authenticating
signature, cf. II Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19; and Gal. 6: 11, which
is, however, of uncertain interpretation. Only in one letter do we
find a definite designation of the amanuensis, viz., in Rom.
16:22.

2. The General Epistles. This is
a group of seven Epistles which in the old manuscripts usually
follows immediately after the Acts of the Apostles and therefore
precedes the Pauline Epistles, perhaps because they are the works
of the older apostles and in general represent the Jewish type of
Christianity. Their representation of the truth naturally differs
from that of the Pauline Epistles, but is in perfect harmony with
it. Among these general Epistles there are:

1. Those written to a community of Christians:

a. The Epistle of James;

b. The two Epistles of Peter;

c. The first Epistle of John;

d. The Epistle of Jude.

2. Those written to a certain individual:

a. The second Epistle of John; (?)

b. The third Epistle of John.

Of these seven Epistles the first one of
Peter and the first one of John were generally accepted as
canonical from the beginning, while the other five were at first
subject to doubt and only gradually found acceptance throughout the
Church. Yet they were never regarded as spurious.

Why these Epistles should be called
general or catholic, is more or less of an
enigma. Various interpretations of the name have been given, but
none of them is entirely satisfactory. Some hold that they were so
called, because they contain the one catholic doctrine which was
delivered to the churches by the apostles; but this is not a
characteristic mark of these Epistles, since those of Paul contain
the same doctrine. Others maintain that the adjective
catholic was used by some of the church fathers in the
sense of canonical, and was by them applied first to the
first Epistle of Peter and the first of John to indicate their
general acceptance, and afterwards to the entire group. But this
explanation is unlikely, because (1) there is scant proof that the
term catholic was ever equivalent to canonical; and (2) it
is hard to see, if this really was the case, why the term should
not have been applied to the Pauline Epistles as well, that were
all accepted from the beginning. Still others think that they
received this appellation, because they were not addressed to one
person or church like the Epistles of Paul, but to large sections
of the Church. We consider this to be the best explanation of the
name, since it is most in harmony with the usual meaning of the
term, and accounts best for the way in which it is used in
patristic literature. Even so, however the name cannot be regarded
as entirely correct, because on the one hand the second (?) and
third Epistles of John are written to individuals, and on the
other, the Epistle to the Ephesians is also an encyclical letter.
These two Epistles of John were probably included in this group,
because of their smallness and close relation to the first Epistle
of John.